naval combat/retreat bug? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided >> Tech Support



Message

bitbucket -> naval combat/retreat bug? (12/27/2007 6:36:53 PM)

Running under MS Vista Business, latest patch set, on a Dell XPS M1710. AWD has latest patch set. Current problem is in a PBEM game.

Japan had a destroyer start in South Pacific 3 (Solomons sea zone). Went to South Pacific 2 (Gilberts), South Pacific 7 (Fiji), South Pacific 8 (Samoa), and then to South Pacific 9. South Pacific 8 had an unescorted WA transport. South Pacific 9 had two WA CV's, no aircraft.

The JAP DD engaged the WA 2xCV, damaged one, and retreated to South Pacific 8, where the unescorted TRS is. DD is now out of movement. When I try to end the movement/combat phase, I get a 'combat required in South Pacific 8' popup. Problem is that the DD has already fired this turn, so it can't fire again to clear the sea zone. Mouse-over on general attack says 100% chance of winning, but when I click on general attack, nothing happens. Since the DD is out of movement it can't just move away. I don't have any units in range to help by destroying the TRS.

Is this a known issue? Is there some way around it? Or should I just reload the JAP turn?

Thanks for any help...



WanderingHead -> RE: naval combat/retreat bug? (12/30/2007 6:38:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bitbucket
Is this a known issue? Is there some way around it? Or should I just reload the JAP turn?


hmmm, indeed this sounds like a possible problem. From your description, I can imagine the game engine doing this. I think you have to replay the turn.

I am not sure exactly how to fix it. An attacking unit retreats to the region it came from, which in this case is occupied by a WA transport. But the attacking unit is not allowed to end the turn in a region with enemy units (exception for subs, which don't retreat).

I ask the general community, how best to fix this? What should happen? (please try to think of things you imagine could be easily implemented)



Lucky1 -> RE: naval combat/retreat bug? (12/31/2007 1:55:47 AM)

I am not a programmer / modder, so please forgive me if my suggestion is not feasible. I would simply recommend that in such an instance (offensive ship retreat to area with enemy transports only) the two ships share the same zone as though combat (i.e. sub combat) had occurred. However, if the retreat is to a zone occupied by enemy warships, I would recommend that a new combat be resolved, with the retreating ship(s) receiving some sort of penalty. At this point the retreating ship would either be eliminated or win the seazone with the opposing ships retreating per normal procedures....




Lebatron -> RE: naval combat/retreat bug? (12/31/2007 4:32:25 AM)

My first choice would be to prevent retreats into any enemy occupied sea zone. Occupied meaning warship or transport. It would change combat strategies. For instance, in the example above, if bitbucket knew that his DD could not retreat after a failed combat, he might either call it off, go for it anyway, or find some way to first clear that potential retreat zone. I could live with it working like this.

My second choice would be to allow warships and enemy transports to coexist without forcing combat. The turn could be ended in this way. Who says the warship has to fight the transport anyway? We pass through them on the way to combat all the time, why not have the reverse be true?





Lebatron -> RE: naval combat/retreat bug? (12/31/2007 4:33:15 AM)

On second thought I think I prefer my second choice best. 



WanderingHead -> RE: naval combat/retreat bug? (12/31/2007 1:18:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron
My second choice would be to allow warships and enemy transports to coexist without forcing combat. The turn could be ended in this way. Who says the warship has to fight the transport anyway? We pass through them on the way to combat all the time, why not have the reverse be true?


That sounds OK on the face of it, but I am a little leery to change such a fundamental game mechanic (only air and subs can end a turn in an enemy region).

Without looking into it in detail, I suspect it could really change some game dynamics as follows: a single warship could be placed on a large stack of enemy transports and sit there. The opposing player now has stuck transports, unable to move because of op-fire (can't leave region occupied by warship). So the one warship, which could have destroyed a single transport, can now incapacitate a whole stack.

After thinking about it, I'm inclined to look into forcing the retreat to go all the way to an unoccupied region. I'd probably have it retreat 1 region to where it came from like it does today, but then perform a check for enemy units. If there are any enemy units, then retreat again. The second retreat would likely be as though the unit were attacked and forced to retreat, computed from the current region (after the first retreat).

This seems good enough, particularly for such a rare event (noone has reported this before!).

We'll see. I'm most likely to settle on the easiest thing that resolves the issue.



WanderingHead -> RE: naval combat/retreat bug? (12/31/2007 2:25:39 PM)

On actually looking at the code, the easiest is to have the attacking naval unit keep looking backwards along its travelled path until it finds a region which is free of enemy naval units.

This is a little bit advantageous to the attacker, since he could send his ships deep into enemy waters, and if he can move along a path of transports then he gets a good free retreat. But it seems hard enough to exploit, and also intuitive enough, so that for this rare case it could be an acceptable fix.

Already implemented. It's late. I'll have to test it later.



bitbucket -> RE: naval combat/retreat bug? (1/2/2008 9:00:46 PM)

Thanks for checking and for the quick fix! It sounds as if it's the simplest possible fix given the code - especially since it's an obscure corner case.

I redid the turn the next day anyhow, diverting an additional DD to kill the opposing TRS. 2xCV without aircraft or escort was too good to pass up. [:-]

Thanks again!



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.093018